P1: IZO Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] pp742-jare-459122 March 22, 2003 14:4 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002 Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, June 2003 (C 2003) Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology Joyce Marcus1 This paper focuses on the discoveries of the last decade in Maya archaeology, and assesses their impact on previous models and synthetic frameworks. Although the bibliography includes 700 items published during the last 10 years, it is not exhaustive; on the contrary, a frustratingly large number of discoveries had to be omitted. Two areas exploding with new research are (1) the elicitation of a greater variety of data from hieroglyphic texts, and (2) a series of chemical and biological breakthroughs in the analysis of human burials. The former make it easier to assess the role of elite actors or “agents” in processes of sociopolitical change. The latter hold out the hope of documenting warfare (through skeletal trauma), migration (by tracing tooth enamel isotopes to ground water), status or gender differences in diet (through bone chemistry), and biological connections of individuals to each other and to earlier populations (through DNA). By combining these new data, we are on our way to integrating humanism and science, and to treating Maya polities as case studies in primary or secondary state formation. KEY WORDS: Maya; sociopolitical evolution; state formation and collapse; warfare; drought; trauma; diet. INTRODUCTION For a previous overview I chose the title Where is Lowland Maya Archaeology Headed? (Marcus, 1995a). It seemed a reasonable question, because at that moment it was unclear whether Maya archaeology would go scientific or humanistic. So strong was the tug of war between these approaches in anthropology that at least one department, that of Stanford, actually split into two programs. We now know the answer to my question: during the last decade, Mayanists headed off in three directions. Some redoubled their interest in traditional an- thropological topics such as the nature of political economies, the emergence of 1Museum of Anthropology, 1109 Geddes, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079; e-mail: [email protected]. 71 1059-0161/03/0600-0071/0 C 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation P1: IZO Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] pp742-jare-459122 March 22, 2003 14:4 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002 72 Marcus sociopolitical hierarchies, the identification of primary and secondary state forma- tion, the everyday life of commoners, and the evolutionary impact of warfare. Oth- ers chose hard-science questions of wetland management, tropical deforestation, climate change, the DNA profiles of long-dead Maya, and the use of isotopic anal- yses to reconstruct both ancient diet and region of origin. Still a third group found the trendy themes of the 1980s postmodernist anthropology irresistible, seeking to make a contribution to agency, practice theory, performance, resistance, gender, and power. Fortunately, these divergent approaches did not split Maya archaeology into separate programs. Indeed, many scholars continue to integrate scientific and humanistic data (Bell et al., 2003; Brady and Ashmore, 1999; Braswell, 2003; Dunning et al., 1999; Fash, 1994, 2001; Fash and Andrews, in press; Fash and Sharer, 1991; Hammond, 1991, 1999; Sabloff, 1990, 2003; Scarborough, 1998; Sharer, 1994, 1996; Sheets, 1992, 2002). This integration of science and human- ism has deep roots in Mesoamerican research. One could point to many holistic attempts to combine archaeology, cultural geography, epigraphy, ethnography, eth- nohistory, ethnoscience, geoscience, iconography, and/or linguistics (Atran, 1999; Atran et al., 1999, 2002; Atran and Ukan Ek’, 1999; Berlin et al., 1974; Berlin and Berlin, 1996, 1998; Bricker and Vail, 1997; Feinman, 1997; Hunn, 1977; Kepecs, 1997a,b; Marcus, 1982; Marcus and Flannery, 1996; Puleston, 1977; Reichel- Dolmatoff, 1976; Vogt, 1964, 1994; Willey, 1980; Williams, 1980, 1981). As for some of the newest approaches to Maya archaeology, the critical question is whether or not the archaeological record really provides enough data to apply them. While examples of resistance, power, and gender relations can certainly be gleaned from historical texts, it is not clear that they can be de- duced from the average archaeological site without injecting a great deal of imagination. The situation is somewhat different when it comes to hard-science approaches involving bone apatite, tooth enamel, collagen, and isotopic analysis. Here there are very impressive physical and chemical data provided by specialists. The question is whether an archaeologist, usually untrained in those disciplines, can fully assess what the range of results mean, or can truly collect a representative sample of individuals for each time period. Regardless of the potential problems, however, an exciting new line of evidence is emerging. Many of the biochemical approaches complement the studies of the plant and animal remains; they are showing us differences in diet between men and women, and between elite and commoners (Ambrose and Katzenberg, 2000; Gerry, 1993; Gerry and Chesson, 2000; Lentz, 1991; Powis et al., 1999; White, 1999; White et al., 2001; Whittington and Reed, 1997a,b). Many of the same human skeletons sampled for trace elements are also revealing unexpected evidence of trauma and violence, making clearer the nature and frequency of warfare in Maya society (Buikstra et al., 2003; Massey and Steele, 1997, pp. 76–77; Saul and Saul, 1991, pp. 148–152; 1997, pp. 43–44). P1: IZO Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] pp742-jare-459122 March 22, 2003 14:4 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002 Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology 73 Armed with new lines of evidence and alternative theoretical approaches, many Mayanists have increased the sophistication of their research on more tra- ditional topics: the origins of agriculture, the rise and collapse of states, the emer- gence and nature of social stratification. The resulting improvement of our models ensures that the Maya will figure prominently in any list of socioevolutionary case studies. Mayanists now seem more interested than ever before in causation, both proximate and ultimate. They are concerned, not only with the specific evolution of Maya civilization, but also with the ways in which the Maya are similar to and different from other civilizations (general evolution). This interest in causation, including efforts to determine who the actors and decision makers were, what form their decisions took, and the sequence of strategies they implemented, has been advocated by many (Bailey, 1969; Lewis, 1974, 1981; Marcus and Flannery, 1996; Robin, 1999, 2001; Sherratt, 1992; Sztompka, 1994; Walker and Lucero, 2000; Zagarell, 1986). Now let us turn to some of the results of recent Maya research. THE PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC PERIODS: FROM 10,000 B.C. TO THE FIRST POTTERY The Paleoindian period in the Maya region (c. 10,000–8000 B.C.) continues to be known from just a handful of sites. Data on the Archaic period (8000–2000 B.C.) are accumulating, however, particularly in Belize (see Fig. 1), where seven new Preceramic sites have been reported (Rosenswig and Masson, 2001). Three of these sites are in upland locations (Strath Bogue, Patt Work Site, and Test Program Subop 7); two are on islands (Laguna de On and Caye Coco); and the remaining two are on the shores of lagoons (Fred Smith Site and Doubloon Bank). Five of the sites are believed to date to the Late Preceramic, based on the presence of constricted unifaces (see below). The other two sites are assigned to the Preceramic, based on the presence of patinated chipped stone found in a distinctive orange soil horizon. It is also worth noting that at the previously known Ladyville 1 site, Preceramic Lowe points also were found in an orange stratum (Kelly, 1993, p. 215). The Preceramic component at Caye Coco covers an estimated 150 m2; among the discoveries there were a posthole, two hammerstones, and a worked oyster shell. It seems that Preceramic settlers were attracted to the Freshwater Creek drainage and preferred to camp near water. Despite these new discoveries, the lowlands of Mesoamerica have yet to host the kind of intensive and long-term regional study conducted in the high- land Mexican valleys of Tehuac´an and Oaxaca (Voorhies et al., 2002, p. 181). The lowland projects that come closest are those directed by (1) MacNeish in Belize (MacNeish, 1983; Zeitlin and Zeitlin, 2000), and (2) Voorhieson the Pacific P1: IZO Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] pp742-jare-459122 March 22, 2003 14:4 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002 74 Marcus Fig. 1. Northern Belize is an area where a number of important Preceramic and Preclassic sites have been located. Shown here are some of those that have been tested or excavated (redrawn from Rosenswig and Masson, 2001, Fig. 7; Shafer and Hester, 1991, Fig. 1). P1: IZO Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] pp742-jare-459122 March 22, 2003 14:4 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002 Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology 75 coast of Chiapas (Voorhies, 1976, 1996; Voorhies et al., 2002; Voorhies and Ken- nett, 1995). Excavations at the Chiapas coast site of Cerro de las Conchas in- dicate that Middle Archaic foragers (c. 5500–3500 B.C.) were clambakers who frequented the site year-round (especially during the dry season, when inland resources were scarce and the adjacent lagoons were teeming with shrimp and clams). Artifacts recovered at this shell mound include “cooking stones” (pos- sibly heated, then placed in gourds to boil food) and ark shells that served as cutting and scraping tools (Voorhies et al., 2002, p. 198). To the west of Cerro de las Conchas are Late Archaic shell mounds (Chantuto, Camp´on, Tlacuachero, El Chorro, and Zapotillo) that show evidence of successive stratified clambakes (see Fig. 2). Adaptations in Belize seem different, but the contrast may reflect where ar- chaeologists have chosen to excavate.